That's a good thing, especially in light of the fact that the campaign is focusing on getting back to the old conservative party - the one that shrinks government, reduces spending, increases efficiency, and puts more money in everyone's pockets.

::snarfs::

Which "conservative party" is that? The one that had the presidency for twenty of the last thirty years, or the one that was in control of one or both houses of congress for eighteen of the last thirty years?

Newsflash: your candidates are not running on their party's record these days.

Miss P -The conservative party that came about during the Reagan revolution inspired the greatest period of domestic growth and international change in modern history. Clinton Co-Opted these conservative ideals when he cut wasteful spending, eliminated governmental waste (to a degree) and shrunk government. I was in my late teens during Clinton, and democrats were soooo pissed at him for ignoring democrat ideals like growing government and increasing taxes. The backlash was hilarious. Clinton was smart enough to realize that his opportunity to lead this nation into prosperity was essential to his legacy.

And you won't find me standing up for the 'neo-con' evolution of conservatism. The right has excellent ideas, but recent republicans have been enticed by bloat, earmarks, and selfish behavior. They aren't good republicans and there is a growing number of conservatives who are sick about the way those republicans have squandered opportunity. Bush made a lot of mistakes, chief in my mind is that he is a big government guy - a liberal concept. McCain hasn't run his campaign as more business as usual, but rather a return to the ideals that made the reagan revolution so successful. McCain is a reformer who has worked across party lines to get things done. There are a host of his sponsored bills that show his ability to work with democrats, even staunch liberals, to acheive positive change. Meanwhile, Obama has none. Not one. His voting record places him as the number one most liberal senator in the senate. His only bi-partisan bills came during his campaign, at the behest of his advisors, and as a result of a desire to appear bi-partisan.

Don't confuse the Bush administration with conservatism. Don't lump all conservatives into one, easy to hate ball. If I did that to you, I'd compare all of you to the failed Carter administration and we'd sit here yelling at each other instead of sharing ideas and opinions. But if you really want to know why democrats have had such an awful presidential election record, it's because the left nominates people with mystery in their backgrounds, wimps, weasels, and other undesirables.

Kerry was my guy, but in retrospect he was also a fake. He talked a big game about glbt issues, but has done nothing about those ideas while in a position of power where he can actually do something for that group of people. Gore distanced himself from Clinton and ran a lackluster campaign. Clinton's campaign was brilliant. Carter was a miserable failure.

But now, I see puff piece after puff piece on Obama and it makes me feel a great sense of sorrow for the state of our media.

Wow....really? Please direct me to the outlets you watch because I surely haven't seen puff piece after puff piece. Furthermore, I agree that they shouldn't influence any political decisions, but the truth of the matter is they do, which is why we need it on BOTH SIDES. Obama isn't the only one who has gotten a "pass", if we can call it that. I've seen it for BOTH sides.

Why no questions about how Obama could be a member of Trinity United for so long without storming out of one of the many, many racist, seperatist, anti-american ravings by Jeramiah Wright?

Again, if we are going to continue to focus on Rev. Wright, then let's pull out all the separatist, racist rants of ALL pastors. John Hagee, anyone? And since when is it anti-american to criticize? Sure, his deliverance can be debated, but at the end of the day if people LISTEN to what he said, he was essentially criticizing what America has done in regards to their foreign policies and saying...karma's a...you can finish that.

In the end, I'm tired of JUST hearing about the past. It's important, but don't you think it's time to talk about pulling us out of the situations we're in now? Let's move past being a P.O.W...great, but not a qualification that will make you a great president. Let's move past the community organizing...great, but not a qualification that will make you a great president. (and surely not something to mock...especially considering that for me, the Civil Right's Movement started with some "community organizing".) I want to talk about NOW. I'm sorry if it's rambling a bit...

Miss P -The conservative party that came about during the Reagan revolution inspired the greatest period of domestic growth and international change in modern history. Clinton Co-Opted these conservative ideals when he cut wasteful spending, eliminated governmental waste (to a degree) and shrunk government. I was in my late teens during Clinton, and democrats were soooo pissed at him for ignoring democrat ideals like growing government and increasing taxes. The backlash was hilarious. Clinton was smart enough to realize that his opportunity to lead this nation into prosperity was essential to his legacy.

And you won't find me standing up for the 'neo-con' evolution of conservatism. The right has excellent ideas, but recent republicans have been enticed by bloat, earmarks, and selfish behavior. They aren't good republicans and there is a growing number of conservatives who are sick about the way those republicans have squandered opportunity. Bush made a lot of mistakes, chief in my mind is that he is a big government guy - a liberal concept. McCain hasn't run his campaign as more business as usual, but rather a return to the ideals that made the reagan revolution so successful. McCain is a reformer who has worked across party lines to get things done. There are a host of his sponsored bills that show his ability to work with democrats, even staunch liberals, to acheive positive change. Meanwhile, Obama has none. Not one. His voting record places him as the number one most liberal senator in the senate. His only bi-partisan bills came during his campaign, at the behest of his advisors, and as a result of a desire to appear bi-partisan.

Don't confuse the Bush administration with conservatism. Don't lump all conservatives into one, easy to hate ball. If I did that to you, I'd compare all of you to the failed Carter administration and we'd sit here yelling at each other instead of sharing ideas and opinions. But if you really want to know why democrats have had such an awful presidential election record, it's because the left nominates people with mystery in their backgrounds, wimps, weasels, and other undesirables.

Kerry was my guy, but in retrospect he was also a fake. He talked a big game about glbt issues, but has done nothing about those ideas while in a position of power where he can actually do something for that group of people. Gore distanced himself from Clinton and ran a lackluster campaign. Clinton's campaign was brilliant. Carter was a miserable failure.

I find it difficult to have a conversation with someone who (a) continually stereotypes people who disagrees with him and fills his rants with bogus accusations about "liberals" and (b) gets his history so wrong. For starters --

Reagan didn't shrink government. For all of his "trickle-down" talk (and punitive social policies), he was probably the biggest tax-and-spend, neo-Keynesian of all presidents. He surely didn't "cut wasteful spending." Yes, there was record growth by some measures during his presidency -- but the national debt tripled, trade deficits began to soar, and the gap between rich and poor widened. Reaganomics was neither stable nor conservative in any meaningful sense.

Moreover, since your accusation about Obama's legislative record was drawn directly from Palin's speech, here's what fact-checkers have to say about it:

Miss P -The conservative party that came about during the Reagan revolution inspired the greatest period of domestic growth and international change in modern history. Clinton Co-Opted these conservative ideals when he cut wasteful spending, eliminated governmental waste (to a degree) and shrunk government. I was in my late teens during Clinton, and democrats were soooo pissed at him for ignoring democrat ideals like growing government and increasing taxes. The backlash was hilarious. Clinton was smart enough to realize that his opportunity to lead this nation into prosperity was essential to his legacy.

And you won't find me standing up for the 'neo-con' evolution of conservatism. The right has excellent ideas, but recent republicans have been enticed by bloat, earmarks, and selfish behavior. They aren't good republicans and there is a growing number of conservatives who are sick about the way those republicans have squandered opportunity. Bush made a lot of mistakes, chief in my mind is that he is a big government guy - a liberal concept. McCain hasn't run his campaign as more business as usual, but rather a return to the ideals that made the reagan revolution so successful. McCain is a reformer who has worked across party lines to get things done. There are a host of his sponsored bills that show his ability to work with democrats, even staunch liberals, to acheive positive change. Meanwhile, Obama has none. Not one. His voting record places him as the number one most liberal senator in the senate. His only bi-partisan bills came during his campaign, at the behest of his advisors, and as a result of a desire to appear bi-partisan.

Don't confuse the Bush administration with conservatism. Don't lump all conservatives into one, easy to hate ball. If I did that to you, I'd compare all of you to the failed Carter administration and we'd sit here yelling at each other instead of sharing ideas and opinions. But if you really want to know why democrats have had such an awful presidential election record, it's because the left nominates people with mystery in their backgrounds, wimps, weasels, and other undesirables.

Kerry was my guy, but in retrospect he was also a fake. He talked a big game about glbt issues, but has done nothing about those ideas while in a position of power where he can actually do something for that group of people. Gore distanced himself from Clinton and ran a lackluster campaign. Clinton's campaign was brilliant. Carter was a miserable failure.

I find it difficult to have a conversation with someone who (a) continually stereotypes people who disagrees with him and fills his rants with bogus accusations about "liberals" and (b) gets his history so wrong. For starters --

Reagan didn't shrink government. For all of his "trickle-down" talk (and punitive social policies), he was probably the biggest tax-and-spend, neo-Keynesian of all presidents. He surely didn't "cut wasteful spending." Yes, there was record growth by some measures during his presidency -- but the national debt tripled, trade deficits began to soar, and the gap between rich and poor widened. Reaganomics was neither stable nor conservative in any meaningful sense.

Moreover, since your accusation about Obama's legislative record was drawn directly from Palin's speech, here's what fact-checkers have to say about it:

I love it when people choose to begin their posts by attacking me for this or that, then ignore half of what I say and give a weak contradictory argument, but that's what I'm about to do so all's fair, I guess.

Your point about 'reaganomics' seems to be confusing what I said with what you wish I said. Reagan increased the number of jobs, grew the economy, ended the cold war, and changed the dynamic of the welfare state that has held so many people back. The gap between rich and poor widened? That sounds perfectly fair to me. In my life I have learned that those that are poor, tend to be poor for a reason. Hell, the very definition of poor has swung so wildly out of control that being poor simply isn't so bad anymore.http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1713es.cfm

Here are some statistics on the 'poor' in america today. You may decide to ignore this part, as it speaks to the fact that the 'poor' are poor for a reason -mainly because their priorities have changed:

"Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher. "

The gap between rich and poor widened? That sounds perfectly fair to me. In my life I have learned that those that are poor, tend to be poor for a reason. Hell, the very definition of poor has swung so wildly out of control that being poor simply isn't so bad anymore.

If I hadn't heard these comments from conservatives many times before, I would be more disgusted. This tired bigotry of "poor people deserve to be poor" is, in my opinion, the most damning legacy of the Reagan era. I can't believe people can say this stuff with a straight face.

PJC, I also totally agree with your assessments. I've been saying the same kinds of things for quite some time. Poverty is self-perpetuating. Kids grow up in poor neighborhoods with poor schools. With their poor education/skills, they get low-paying jobs. Poverty breeds violence, divorce, and a whole host of other factors that contribute to the next generation remaining below the poverty line. We don't need less government programs, we need more effective ones. Raise the quality of schools in poor areas, and there will be a marked difference in the next generation of those growing up in poverty. Raise the minimum wage to one that people can actually live on, and single mothers will be able to spend more time with their kids because they won't have to work two or three jobs just to put food on the table.

I know that American poverty is all relative, but since when has America looked abroad to make us feel better about our living standards.

I love it when people choose to begin their posts by attacking me for this or that, then ignore half of what I say and give a weak contradictory argument, but that's what I'm about to do so all's fair, I guess.

Your point about 'reaganomics' seems to be confusing what I said with what you wish I said. Reagan increased the number of jobs, grew the economy, ended the cold war, and changed the dynamic of the welfare state that has held so many people back.

Listen, you said that Reagan "shrunk government." He didn't. Any positive effects of his economic policies were from his profligate spending and expansion of government. This is why I called it neo-Keynesian. You can try to tie the GDP growth to his 1981 tax cuts if you want, but right-wing experts before you have already failed. Moreover, there is a pretty serious question about the extent to which Reagan increased the number of jobs. For one, the employment growth during the Reagan years looks artificially significant because he began his first term at a post-war nadir in employment. He also changed employment calculations so that increasing numbers of people who weren't working were excluded from the unemployment rate -- a rate which, of course, also does not measure chronic underemployment and declining wages. Further, his deregulation, anti-union, and trade policies (not to mention monetary policies -- but I imagine we're both out of our depth on this subject) weakened the position of organized labor and started the process of moving manufacturing and other decent jobs overseas at a rapid pace. A good number of economists, in fact, attribute both the growth and employment stabilization during this period to cyclical (ah, Keynes again!) rather than policy changes. In any case, all things being equal, if Reagan had reinvested in the domestic economy instead of wasting money on fruitless foreign excursions, the growth would have been larger and even more sustained.

If the Reagan-era cuts to welfare programs helped people, why were there, as just one example, more children in poverty at the end of his two terms -- a period of rapid economic expansion -- than at the beginning -- during a terrible recession?

Since you and I disagree about the importance of closing the rich-poor gap and you seem uninterested in ending poverty, I am not interested in discussing the rest with you. I'm sure others have plenty to say.